But it is a religion. It views racism not merely as a historical legacy to be remedied by laws applicable to everyone, but as America's Original Sin which can never be expunged by white people (or anyone else progressives accuse of being their collaborators) even by endless self criticism, apologies and mortification. There's a whole i…
But it is a religion. It views racism not merely as a historical legacy to be remedied by laws applicable to everyone, but as America's Original Sin which can never be expunged by white people (or anyone else progressives accuse of being their collaborators) even by endless self criticism, apologies and mortification. There's a whole industry devoted to it. So like many religions it's also part grift.
I think it implies a belief in a god or god's. I don't think there is any argument that the importation of slaves into the American colonies was important to its growth and also immoral. There were many people in the 13 colonies who saw the buying and selling of humans as immoral, but they benefitted from the institution anyway. How does acknowledging both truths constitute a religion?
You entirely miss the point, which is not a plain history lesson but the need for perpetual expiation of ineradicable guilt. It's a dogma of secular predestination. We are always damned, always hell bound and must always repent and acknowledge our transgressions. Those who don't submit are subjected to the equivalent of sermons and struggle sessions. If that isn't piety on display, I don't know what is. It also pays pretty well for those who preach it.
It might be that a country with a difficult past can un-damn itself by addressing that past, very similar to how an individual can. Some people whose early life was traumatic and troubled find that the effects have lasted into adulthood, and prevent them from living the satisfying life they wish for. But if they have the ability to look into their early experiences and bring them into the light of day, they can free themselves from the power of past wrongs. I've often wondered how a nation might do this liberating self-discovery, but still don't have any good ideas. Maybe Germany knows something about it?
People who are accused of complicity in racism - especially "systemic" racism which is often discernible to academics or ideologues and not obvious to anyone else - often feel unfairly stigmatized, the more so if their immediate ancestors did not perpetrate it. They may also feel that their forebears experienced significant prejudice and handicaps too. America has known all sorts of discrimination aimed at all sorts of people - not just blacks but American Indians, Chinese, Catholics, Jews, Irish, Italians, Slavs, Mormons, etc. That's a lot of trauma to assess and psychoanalyze. A cottage industry devoted to addressing slavery alone risks being branded as special pleading and spurring a backlash such as we have already seen, exploited by interested parties. Additionally, competing victimologies can balkanize the country and prevent it from reaching a useful consensus
Of course there's no reason why the history of all groups can't be taught, but they will have to make way for eachother. That's a much more complicated case than Germany's, where the trauma was inflicted on people who were either driven out of the country or simply murdered and never came back to demand a rightful place. Imagine if 20 million Jews and Poles were asserting equal rights to live in Prussia or Bavaria.* I doubt so many Germans would be happy to oblige them.
*Following the war Stalin gave an eastern slice of Germany to Poland after taking an eastern slice of Poland for himself, but neither the Germans nor the Poles had any say in the matter.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. The difference, to my mind, between the immigrant groups you mentioned and the black population is in large part the circumstances by which they came to north America, and their conditions once here. Africans were kidnapped, brought here against their will, forced to serve masters, for many generations. People bought and sold. While other ethnicities, who for the most part came here voluntarily, faced discrimination, they were not subjected to the same inescapable circumstance as slavery, and later Jim Crow.
And no, none of us living today are responsible for slavery, or own slaves. But we are all inheritors of our mutual past as a nation and live with its consequences. What harm can come from bringing it to light, other than maybe some transient discomfort? I do not advocate national psychoanalysis, but I do advocate for historical truth in our classrooms, which includes both the good and the bad. It really won't bite. It's what a great nation, seeking to be more perfect, might do.
I thought the reference to religion was in the sense of a "woke Statement of Faith" that all adherents must subscribe to in all its particulars in order to remain in good standing with the rest of the "congregants."
BLM has been exposed as a total grift at this point. Anyone who just follows mainstream outlets probably has no idea. What the heads of that organization have done is basically Wayne Lapierre/Steve Bannon bad, but no one wants to report on it.
As far as I know, it was broken by New York Magazine- I'm not exactly sure where they fall on the left/right spectrum, but I'm not aware of them being far right.
Unfortunately, when the right complains about media bias, they're not always wrong. The Hunter Biden laptop is the biggest recent example. I've wondered, on that one, whether the msm in general is just wary of covering scandals related to politicians' children, as they seem to be doing a replay in underreporting Kushner's ties to the Saudis.
I think the main stream media stopped reporting on Biden's son when Trump's son in law came home with pockets full of dirty money from the Saudi Royal Family. The Trump's didn't even try to hide it.
One story in a notorious scandal rag makes the accusations tentative at the very least and dubious at best. It is very easy to cast a shadow. Ask yourself who benefits from this story. That is a good place to begin gathering some facts to be able to make an assessment of the story’s validity. To say, on the reporting in one story from the NYPost, that “BLM has been exposed as a total grift at this point” is, perhaps, putting too much faith in the NYPost.
The story was broken by right-wing propaganda, and apart form the NY Magazine story, all the reporting in from right wing propaganda. A small non-profit with a $200,000 annual budget suddenly became a large-scale operation, taking in $90 million in 2020 and bought a $6 million house in California. (They got a pretty good deal on that house, BTW). They did nothing illegal. We can disagree with their strategic spending priorities, but on the other hand, their actions were pretty typical of people who find they have won the lottery when they did not even buy a ticket. Hopefully, they have hired a non-profit expert to help them reorganize.
Mea culpa. However, the story did lack substance using language that was not specific. There was no content to present possible differing interpretations and view points. I stand by the criticism that there is very likely a reason such a story has not, to my knowledge, been covered by more substantial news organizations.
I also think there is a reason, but probably not the reason you're thinking. I haven't seen any reporting, or even any comment from the people in the story, that disputes the reported facts. They're putting a spin on it, to be sure (Yes, we bought the $6 million mansion, but it was for a really good reason!), but they're not disputing the facts, to my knowledge.
Another example:
How many people following main stream outlets thought it was remotely possible Kyle Rittenhouse would be acquitted? Everyone makes editorial decisions, what they choose and choose not to cover, and how they cover it. Everyone has subscribers and advertisers to answer to. The MSM knows its audience.
I'm not trying to argue they're as bad as outlets like the NY Post or Fox News, because I absolutely don't think they are, but they're not perfect, and they do leave their audience less informed than they could be from time to time.
Reporters can be very frustrated by the editorial decisions. I know cause I’ve worked there and sometimes tore out my hair in frustration. But there’s more than different points of view in play now. The right has been building professional blind outrage at the other. The left have screamers, too, but they are not as organized or well funded…. Or we’ll armed. L'And they don’t want to kill people for disagreeing with them like the red hats.
You're using an expressly theological term which refers to something that can only be expunged by faith in a savior. It's nice of you to grant some whites a dispensation, but that only reinforces the analogy. And by what right do you get to decide who gets to be saved and who doesn't?
No, the term Original Sin is being used figuratively, or perhaps as an analogy to a defects with forever ramifications. (See systemic racism). No analogy is a perfect match in all its particulars. No one thinks the Original Sin of slavery is religious in the sense it can only be expunged by faith in a savior. It can be expunged by public policy, laws, and a change in social mores.
What's a "defect with forever ramifications" except a permanent blot? And how can a permanent blot be cleansed except through permanent atonement? That's why woke theology requires unending proselytism and why it differs from conventional liberalism.
Even conventional liberalism is dissatisfied with the US efforts to eliminate the systemic racism established by past government policies. A significant number of elected official opposed civil rights for blacks in the 1960s. The right simply declares that systemic racism disappeared-poof-with the passage of the Civil Rights Act they opposed, and have undermined in insidious ways ever since.
Today, the right is opposed to teaching the shameful parts of history because it might make students uncomfortable. Well sure, that 's how we get to "never again." The pitfall the far left never avoids is going too far like statements that all white children are racists by virtue of being white. People like Cruz grab these fringe ideas from people who are usually not Democrats and try to claim they represent the view of the Democratic party.
But it is a religion. It views racism not merely as a historical legacy to be remedied by laws applicable to everyone, but as America's Original Sin which can never be expunged by white people (or anyone else progressives accuse of being their collaborators) even by endless self criticism, apologies and mortification. There's a whole industry devoted to it. So like many religions it's also part grift.
I think it implies a belief in a god or god's. I don't think there is any argument that the importation of slaves into the American colonies was important to its growth and also immoral. There were many people in the 13 colonies who saw the buying and selling of humans as immoral, but they benefitted from the institution anyway. How does acknowledging both truths constitute a religion?
You entirely miss the point, which is not a plain history lesson but the need for perpetual expiation of ineradicable guilt. It's a dogma of secular predestination. We are always damned, always hell bound and must always repent and acknowledge our transgressions. Those who don't submit are subjected to the equivalent of sermons and struggle sessions. If that isn't piety on display, I don't know what is. It also pays pretty well for those who preach it.
It might be that a country with a difficult past can un-damn itself by addressing that past, very similar to how an individual can. Some people whose early life was traumatic and troubled find that the effects have lasted into adulthood, and prevent them from living the satisfying life they wish for. But if they have the ability to look into their early experiences and bring them into the light of day, they can free themselves from the power of past wrongs. I've often wondered how a nation might do this liberating self-discovery, but still don't have any good ideas. Maybe Germany knows something about it?
People who are accused of complicity in racism - especially "systemic" racism which is often discernible to academics or ideologues and not obvious to anyone else - often feel unfairly stigmatized, the more so if their immediate ancestors did not perpetrate it. They may also feel that their forebears experienced significant prejudice and handicaps too. America has known all sorts of discrimination aimed at all sorts of people - not just blacks but American Indians, Chinese, Catholics, Jews, Irish, Italians, Slavs, Mormons, etc. That's a lot of trauma to assess and psychoanalyze. A cottage industry devoted to addressing slavery alone risks being branded as special pleading and spurring a backlash such as we have already seen, exploited by interested parties. Additionally, competing victimologies can balkanize the country and prevent it from reaching a useful consensus
Of course there's no reason why the history of all groups can't be taught, but they will have to make way for eachother. That's a much more complicated case than Germany's, where the trauma was inflicted on people who were either driven out of the country or simply murdered and never came back to demand a rightful place. Imagine if 20 million Jews and Poles were asserting equal rights to live in Prussia or Bavaria.* I doubt so many Germans would be happy to oblige them.
*Following the war Stalin gave an eastern slice of Germany to Poland after taking an eastern slice of Poland for himself, but neither the Germans nor the Poles had any say in the matter.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. The difference, to my mind, between the immigrant groups you mentioned and the black population is in large part the circumstances by which they came to north America, and their conditions once here. Africans were kidnapped, brought here against their will, forced to serve masters, for many generations. People bought and sold. While other ethnicities, who for the most part came here voluntarily, faced discrimination, they were not subjected to the same inescapable circumstance as slavery, and later Jim Crow.
And no, none of us living today are responsible for slavery, or own slaves. But we are all inheritors of our mutual past as a nation and live with its consequences. What harm can come from bringing it to light, other than maybe some transient discomfort? I do not advocate national psychoanalysis, but I do advocate for historical truth in our classrooms, which includes both the good and the bad. It really won't bite. It's what a great nation, seeking to be more perfect, might do.
I thought the reference to religion was in the sense of a "woke Statement of Faith" that all adherents must subscribe to in all its particulars in order to remain in good standing with the rest of the "congregants."
It wouldn't surprise me if that's true, since there have been many instances in which people have been exhorted to acknowledge their racism.
BLM has been exposed as a total grift at this point. Anyone who just follows mainstream outlets probably has no idea. What the heads of that organization have done is basically Wayne Lapierre/Steve Bannon bad, but no one wants to report on it.
Who cares.
Why wouldn’t WaPo or NYT report on it? Could it be that the accusations don’t pass the fact-checking test? Where do you get your info from?
As far as I know, it was broken by New York Magazine- I'm not exactly sure where they fall on the left/right spectrum, but I'm not aware of them being far right.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/04/black-lives-matter-6-million-dollar-house.html
Unfortunately, when the right complains about media bias, they're not always wrong. The Hunter Biden laptop is the biggest recent example. I've wondered, on that one, whether the msm in general is just wary of covering scandals related to politicians' children, as they seem to be doing a replay in underreporting Kushner's ties to the Saudis.
I think the main stream media stopped reporting on Biden's son when Trump's son in law came home with pockets full of dirty money from the Saudi Royal Family. The Trump's didn't even try to hide it.
One story in a notorious scandal rag makes the accusations tentative at the very least and dubious at best. It is very easy to cast a shadow. Ask yourself who benefits from this story. That is a good place to begin gathering some facts to be able to make an assessment of the story’s validity. To say, on the reporting in one story from the NYPost, that “BLM has been exposed as a total grift at this point” is, perhaps, putting too much faith in the NYPost.
The link is not to a story from the NY Post. It’s NY Magazine.
The story was broken by right-wing propaganda, and apart form the NY Magazine story, all the reporting in from right wing propaganda. A small non-profit with a $200,000 annual budget suddenly became a large-scale operation, taking in $90 million in 2020 and bought a $6 million house in California. (They got a pretty good deal on that house, BTW). They did nothing illegal. We can disagree with their strategic spending priorities, but on the other hand, their actions were pretty typical of people who find they have won the lottery when they did not even buy a ticket. Hopefully, they have hired a non-profit expert to help them reorganize.
Mea culpa. However, the story did lack substance using language that was not specific. There was no content to present possible differing interpretations and view points. I stand by the criticism that there is very likely a reason such a story has not, to my knowledge, been covered by more substantial news organizations.
I also think there is a reason, but probably not the reason you're thinking. I haven't seen any reporting, or even any comment from the people in the story, that disputes the reported facts. They're putting a spin on it, to be sure (Yes, we bought the $6 million mansion, but it was for a really good reason!), but they're not disputing the facts, to my knowledge.
Another example:
How many people following main stream outlets thought it was remotely possible Kyle Rittenhouse would be acquitted? Everyone makes editorial decisions, what they choose and choose not to cover, and how they cover it. Everyone has subscribers and advertisers to answer to. The MSM knows its audience.
I'm not trying to argue they're as bad as outlets like the NY Post or Fox News, because I absolutely don't think they are, but they're not perfect, and they do leave their audience less informed than they could be from time to time.
Reporters can be very frustrated by the editorial decisions. I know cause I’ve worked there and sometimes tore out my hair in frustration. But there’s more than different points of view in play now. The right has been building professional blind outrage at the other. The left have screamers, too, but they are not as organized or well funded…. Or we’ll armed. L'And they don’t want to kill people for disagreeing with them like the red hats.
Power corrupts. It’s the rare case when it DOESN’T.
You're using an expressly theological term which refers to something that can only be expunged by faith in a savior. It's nice of you to grant some whites a dispensation, but that only reinforces the analogy. And by what right do you get to decide who gets to be saved and who doesn't?
No, the term Original Sin is being used figuratively, or perhaps as an analogy to a defects with forever ramifications. (See systemic racism). No analogy is a perfect match in all its particulars. No one thinks the Original Sin of slavery is religious in the sense it can only be expunged by faith in a savior. It can be expunged by public policy, laws, and a change in social mores.
What's a "defect with forever ramifications" except a permanent blot? And how can a permanent blot be cleansed except through permanent atonement? That's why woke theology requires unending proselytism and why it differs from conventional liberalism.
Even conventional liberalism is dissatisfied with the US efforts to eliminate the systemic racism established by past government policies. A significant number of elected official opposed civil rights for blacks in the 1960s. The right simply declares that systemic racism disappeared-poof-with the passage of the Civil Rights Act they opposed, and have undermined in insidious ways ever since.
Today, the right is opposed to teaching the shameful parts of history because it might make students uncomfortable. Well sure, that 's how we get to "never again." The pitfall the far left never avoids is going too far like statements that all white children are racists by virtue of being white. People like Cruz grab these fringe ideas from people who are usually not Democrats and try to claim they represent the view of the Democratic party.